I would like to thank my opponent for being here and accepting my debate.

I will now move into my contentions.

Before I start, I need to provide some definitions to clarify things.

The definition of Erin Paeng, as taken from urban dictionary, is a butt ugly and very stupid person.

The word "or" implies that I am given an ultimatum; I must choose between Erin Paeng, or die.

Die, in strictly denotational terms, is bad. Relative to the alternative given, Erin Paeng, it is actually not that bad.

I will now provide my first contention.

The choice is ours to make, do we choose Erin Paeng or death? As stated in my definition, we can reframe the question to butt-ugly and very stupid person, or death. To any person with an ounce of common sense, death is much more preferable.

My resolutional analysis will now be provided.
I am now writing my R.A.

This resolution is vague and unclear, and as first speaker I am obligated to provide an insight as to how the vagueness should be interpreted.
Erin Paeng, or death? What does it mean to choose Erin Paeng over death? What would Erin Paeng do? Or in other words, what would Erin do for the chooser?

My criterion for this is trolling. To successfully win this debate, the arguer must devoid from any logical argument and instead reason with logic that only reasonable people find unreasonable because of troll logic which is reasonable to unreasonable reason.

Reasons for voting decision: Meh. I have to give this one to pro. Spelling and Grammar to Pro for creating such a vague topic. Winning from a forfeit usually requires one person to actually give arguments. Because no arguments were given, there was almost no reason to debate. Also, creating a troll debate and not recognizing it as such until the second round, creating an unclear resolution, all of this goes under bad conduct. Since con was first, she did not meet the BOP, therefore she loses args.